Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Scott,
REMOVED is not the same thing as "disprovoved". It is actually surprising that you or others would be so upset about the possibility of an alternative (e.g. creation) being considered equally to abiogenesis, in a classroom.
Had abiogenesis demonstrated evidence which supported it over creation, perhaps this would be understandable (and again, not talking of evolution-that discussion has already taken place and it has been in schools longer than I've been alive) however it has not, and leaves quite a few serious questions unanswered or half-answered by "well, with enough time...." requiring faith that given enough time, normally impossible things can indeed happen. By this logic, not only is creation possible, but so are *all* of the different religions' versions of "God". After all, given enough time....
This is all I keep pointing out. Not that your theory or mine is right, but that as both are equal wrt the evidence-ultimately inconclusive-neither should receive billing as "the way it was" while the other is cast off to theology class.
The argument that your theory or mine is "right" is not winnable by either side at this point, as no evidence supports either conclusively; that is why I only argue that if one is to be taught, so should the other; the various laws of science or how experiments are done will not change at any rate regardless of what conclusions a student may reach in his or her own mind, or which version of which theory he or she believes occurred.
In essence, I am arguing that we keep a truly open mind, at least in the classroom, when it regards things so highly charged and yet not proven for either side.

Beyond the argument for an open mind, all the same experiments can be demonstrated, and students can make up their own minds; once one or the other is a proven "fact" then perhaps one or the other could be excluded from the classroom, but until then, why not educate and not indoctrinate?
That's all I'm asking for.

but then won't we have to teach EVERY religion's viewpoint on creation, in the interests of fairness? even Scientology and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and all the rest? Buddism and Islam and the Great Green Arkleseizure who sneezed the universe into existence? What about the Sumerian god Enki who created life in one epochal act of masturbation? where does the line get drawn?

There's way too many creation myths for them to all be taught, and teaching only the most popular one (in America, anyhow) is patently a form of indoctrination through exclusion, wouldn't you say?

Originally Posted by jockeys

but then won't we have to teach EVERY religion's viewpoint on creation, in the interests of fairness?

Not if neither is taught. "again, both should be taught or neither should, because in the blind eyes of true science, they are equal theories." - John P. (more than once he has said this to answer that question)

Just as a side note, I haven't had time to read all 17 pages of this, but as a fairly recent (2003) high school graduate I thought I'd interject here real quick. I went to a private, but non-Christian/religious high school (I did however go to Christian schools through the 8th grade). In my AP Biology class the book was, in fact, written around the theory of evolution, as the "currently accepted scientific theory", both the teacher and the book stressed that it was a THEORY not a fact/law, that it has essentially NO proof (no recorded cases of one species begeting another species. adaptations within a species are of course identified facts). The book did have a section on "origins" or something that did, in fact, go over creationism AND the "we were put here by aliens" and a few other theories. As discussed before though "God created the world" pretty much sums up creationism so there's not a whole lot more to teach on the subject, scientifically. In my AP english class we did go over "origin myths" from a variety of cultures from far-eastern to central america, etc.
Keep in mind this was NOT a "religious" school, and the textbooks were from well known academic publishers such as McGraw Hill, etc (can't remember exact ones, but I do remember a few from McGraw Hill, also a popular publisher at my college).

Originally Posted by JohnP

Likewise, Russel, they also show that creation cannot be ruled out; therefore since the experimentation has not lead to proof of *either* theory, that IS how science works. The same rules apply to everything.

Experiments have shown the building blocks of life forming as a result of known chemical interactions, this is supportive of abiogenesis.

There has never been a sighting of creation occurring in even the simplest building blocks, thus creation is not supported by empirical evidence.

Originally Posted by JohnP

...and you assure me certain polymers "reproduce" (still waiting for that link) but nothing that actually supports that *life* was created that way;

The previous linked polymer experiment says that they " may be elongated indefinitely by repeated cycles in which the mineral with its adsorbed oligomers is first incubated with activated monomers and then washed free of deactivated monomer and side-products"

That is self replication of organic material by a natural mechanism, organic material that is found nowhere but in living beings, thus it is supportive evidence of abiogenesis being possible.

Originally Posted by JohnP

My argument is that both should be approached equally, because the empirical evidence (the same stuff you listed, in fact) could be said to support both theories.

No, because you are still equivocating on the word "creation".

If you mean that the workings of nature, as in the manner in which chemicals bond and interact, then sure creation can be credited.

But that is neither how creation was intended nor is it how the main proponents of the theory use it. It was intended and is used to mean that no natural process could result in life, which has never been supported.

Originally Posted by JohnP

The ISSR is only one organization Russel; it is like saying the extraterrestrial life society believes in Aliens. Abiogenesis is no more science than creation is; it is just an idea that people who do not believe in creation (or do not want to) are seeking desperately to prove. So far unsuccessfully.

If you had looked at their website you would have seen that your argument is absolutely false. MANY members of the ISSR believe creation and put their (well respected) name on books that address it.

Yet, they realize that it is not a scientifically valid explanation.

Your analogy is also incorrect, the ISSR was not formed by like minded individuals for the purpose of espousing their common beliefs, but exactly the opposite, people of diverse backgrounds and belief systems who have come together to promote the advancement of true science AND true religious studies, in whatever form they may take.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Sure, there are a lot of experiments you can link to which seek to prove it is, however, none of these has successfully done so.

Why is it that time is never taken into consideration?

From the results that we have achieved, there would need to be a sufficient amount of time for more building blocks to form, and from there DNA and from there proto-organelle structures that could be conglomerated into simple cells and possibly form life.

It's completely ignoring the way experimentation works to claim that since results are not absolutely, completely, totally, unequivocally proven for the entire process that the basic theory is unsupported.

Originally Posted by JohnP

I will give that the Atheist theories have been given cool, official-sounding Latin names (which basically mean "a beginning without life" abiogenesis and autogenesis "self generation") based on this if you want to consider it differently, call "creation" "extragenesis". Does it matter? Not at all. Ultimately theories and hypotheses have to stand on the evidence, and so far, none of the above is any more grounded in evidence than the other.

Well, I'll assume you don't really believe the entire scientific community is gullible enough to buy into a theory because it's name sounds cool.

But seriously, you have not understood the word "evidence" in the way that is necessary for having these kinds of discussions. In science, evidence is anything that gives the theory credence. It has been shown that organic matter can form naturally, therefore abiogenesis is "supported". No, abiogenesis has not been proven to result in "life", but the few experiments that we've had time to cary out have supported it's hypothesis, which is more than can be said for creation.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Not if neither is taught. "again, both should be taught or neither should, because in the blind eyes of true science, they are equal theories." - John P. (more than once he has said this to answer that question)

so what's the answer, quit teaching biology classes? you've got to learn about something, right?

Originally Posted by jockeys

so what's the answer, quit teaching biology classes? you've got to learn about something, right?

They could go back to talking about the birds and the bees?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

They could go back to talking about the birds and the bees?

that's Health class, not Biology.

I agree that teaching nothing is less incendiary and would result in less unhappiness.


of course, back in the day, some of those greek dudes were pretty ****ed at socrates for teaching unorthodox stuff, too

Originally Posted by jockeys

so what's the answer, quit teaching biology classes? you've got to learn about something, right?

biology can be taught without teaching evolution

Originally Posted by jockeys

that's Health class, not Biology.

I agree that teaching nothing is less incendiary and would result in less unhappiness.


of course, back in the day, some of those greek dudes were pretty ****ed at socrates for teaching unorthodox stuff, too

Health class is about how to protect yourself whilst playing the part of a bird or a bee....